The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the reasons for appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, confiscation) is too uneasy and unfair.

The crime of this case as to the grounds for appeal is the crime of this case where the defendant destroyed the house door of the victim who shares and lives in a multi-household house, thereby putting the house door of the victim and extinguishing the residence of the victim. The crime of this case not only harms the peace of dwelling for all of the residents of the above multi-household household but also damages the life and property of the victim and also causes serious threats to the life and property.

However, other neighbors who have observed the fire prevention site of the defendant was immediately reported, and the fire was early extinguishing, which did not cause human life damage, and the victim's physical damage is relatively little.

I, the owner and lessor of the above multi-household, submitted a written confirmation that he was compensated with the full amount of 1.87 million won paid to the victim on behalf of the defendant, and 2.5 million won paid to the victim on behalf of the defendant. It seems that the damage was actually recovered.

The accused makes a confession of crime and is divided into a truth.

The defendant is only the criminal history of a fine imposed on the defendant, but is not the previous one.

This is all favorable to the defendant.

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances asserted by the health team and the prosecutor as the elements of sentencing are already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, and there is no particular change in the situation after the sentence of the lower court was made.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is based on sentencing.